Basarte v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Gabriel Garduce Basarte and private respondent Noel Jarito were candidates for Municipal Mayor of Silvino Lobos, Northern Samar, in the May 10, 2004 elections. Following the canvassing of election returns, petitioner Basarte objected to the inclusion of Election Return No. 04101444 from Precinct No. 17A, Barangay Cagda-o, alleging it was tampered with and that a page containing votes for local positions was missing. 2. Procedural History: The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) denied petitioner's request to exclude the election return. Petitioner appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which, through its First Division, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the MBC's ruling. The COMELEC en banc subsequently denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration, with one commissioner dissenting. Following these decisions, Noel Jarito was proclaimed the winning mayor. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing a resolution in violation of its own rules and by disregarding evidence of irregularities in the election return. He contended that the COMELEC failed to adequately address the missing page and the unaccounted votes for provincial board members. Petitioner sought to have the assailed COMELEC resolution declared void, the MBC ruling nullified, and the proclamation of Jarito reversed, or alternatively, for the exclusion of the contested election return or a special election.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its September 2, 2005 En Banc Resolution in defiance of COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding evidence casting doubt on the regularity and reliability of the questioned Election Return (ER) of Precinct 17A, and in concluding that the questioned ER is genuine and authentic for canvass purposes, despite irregularities. Whether the exclusion of the questioned election return would materially affect the election results, as required by Section 243(d) of the Omnibus Election Code.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC's dismissal of the petition to exclude the election return, primarily on the ground that the petitioner failed to sufficiently prove that the exclusion of the questioned election return would materially affect the election results.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's defiance of its own rules: The Court found that the assailed COMELEC en banc Resolution indeed violated Section 1, Rule 4 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which prohibits a member from being the ponente of an en banc decision on a motion to reconsider a resolution they penned in a division. The Court reiterated the principle that COMELEC should respect its own rules to avoid suspicion of bias or arbitrariness. However, this procedural infirmity alone did not automatically warrant reversal without considering the substantive merits of the case. On the COMELEC's disregard of evidence and the irregularity of the election return and its genuineness: The Court agreed with the petitioner that the COMELEC disregarded glaring facts indicating irregularity in the assailed election return. These included the admitted lack of one page, which should have contained votes for several Provincial Board Member candidates and the initial spaces for mayoral candidates. The Court noted that the COMELEC did not address the issue of the missing names and votes for the Provincial Board Member candidates. The explanation provided by the BEI Chairman regarding the missing page was deemed problematic and unsubstantiated, especially since the votes for seven Provincial Board Member candidates remained unaccounted for. While the Court acknowledged the prima facie presumption of regularity accorded to election returns, it emphasized that this presumption vanishes when there is a prima facie showing of irregularity or incompleteness on the face of the return. The unexplained omission of entries, particularly the missing page and the unaccounted votes for other candidates, created doubt as to the authenticity and integrity of the return. The Court distinguished this case from those where the returns appear regular on their face, stating that the principle of not looking beyond the returns does not apply when there is a clear indication of falsification or tampering. On the materiality of the election return: Despite finding irregularities and procedural flaws, the Court ultimately denied the petition because the petitioner failed to establish that the exclusion of the questioned election return would materially affect the election results, as required by Section 243(d) of the Omnibus Election Code. The Court noted that this crucial allegation was not sufficiently raised or proven by the petitioner before the COMELEC and was belatedly presented before the Supreme Court, which cannot resolve vital questions of fact for the first time on appeal.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that while election returns are generally accorded prima facie status, this presumption vanishes when there is a prima facie showing that the return is not genuine or is incomplete on its face, necessitating further examination. However, for a pre-proclamation controversy to prosper, it must be shown that the questioned election return would materially affect the election results.